N.J. Man Serving 7 Years for Guns He Legally Owned

[snjmom]

It took me 12 hours from St. Louis to DC. Why play semantic games? He had already been in NJ and failed to secure the guns to his residence. He was exploiting the exception through sheer laziness. I agree that, at worst, he should have gotten a fine and a stern warning about how seriously NJ takes its gun-carrying laws, but, that is mercy which is often only obtained by remorse and acknowledgement of guilt.

Neither of which he seems to be offering, just a self-righteous perplexity that he might actually be subject to the laws as they stand. I see it all the time, the most common being "I never did anything before."

Well, brother, welcome to your first time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It took me 12 hours from St. Louis to DC. Why play semantic games? He had already been in NJ and failed to secure the guns to his residence. He was exploiting the exception through sheer laziness. I agree that, at worst, he should have gotten a fine and a stern warning about how seriously NJ takes its gun-carrying laws, but, that is mercy which is often only obtained by remorse and acknowledgement of guilt.

Neither of which he seems to be offering, just a self-righteous perplexity that he might actually be subject to the laws as they stand. I see it all the time, the most common being "I never did anything before."

Well, brother, welcome to your first time.

St Louis to DC is 850 miles, give or take, Colorado to NJ is 1800. Driving straight through that will take roughly 30 hours. There was a time I could make that type of drive in 2 or 3 days, but now it would take me at least 4. If I had a relative along the way it would take even longer. Where in that ridiculous law does it state that a person must go straight from one place to another with no stops for food, sleep, bathroom breaks, or putting gasoline in the car?

Maybe the reason he is not offering an acknowledgment of guilt is he is not guilty, except in the small, feeble, minds of liberals that do not understand the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Luissa]

'Perfect Storm of Injustice'? N.J. Man Serving 7 Years for Guns He Legally Owned

When Brian Aitken confided in his mother during a moment of emotional distress last year that life wasn't worth living, he never could have imagined the words triggering a chain of events that ultimately landed him in a New Jersey state prison.

But that's precisely what happened, according to an account of the events by Aitken's father, Larry, and attorney, Evan Napper.

Brian Aitken, 25, a successful media consultant, had been in the process of selling his home in Colorado and moving to a suburban New Jersey apartment to be closer to his son, 2.

But on the afternoon of Jan. 3, 2009, the stress of a recent divorce and messy cross-country move caused him to crack. Aitken stormed out of his parent's suburban home in Mount Laurel, N.J., hopped into his car filled with belongings and set out on a drive to cool off.

Seven years for legally owned guns...




Brian Aitken, New Jersey Prisoner on Gun Charge Appeals to Governor for Clemency - ABC News




Free Brian Aitken – brian d. aitken


Free Brian Aitken | Facebook

He broke the law. Don't break the law, and you won't go to prison.

 

[Luissa]

So, was he living in his car for the week that he had the guns in there?

No, he was driving from Colorado to New Jersey. Try it some time, it isn't like flying, it takes a few days.

Read the article over. He had already been to his parents house, which is when he just have put the guns away.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, was he living in his car for the week that he had the guns in there?

No, he was driving from Colorado to New Jersey. Try it some time, it isn't like flying, it takes a few days.

Read the article over. He had already been to his parents house, which is when he just have put the guns away.

Actually, no he shouldn't have. He was not moving in with his parents, he was moving into an apartment with his friends. If he had put them in his parents house he would have been breaking the law. Unlike you, I read all the articles.

 

[Luissa]

No, he was driving from Colorado to New Jersey. Try it some time, it isn't like flying, it takes a few days.

Read the article over. He had already been to his parents house, which is when he just have put the guns away.

Actually, no he shouldn't have. He was not moving in with his parents, he was moving into an apartment with his friends. If he had put them in his parents house he would have been breaking the law. Unlike you, I read all the articles.

I think putting them at his parents, would have been smarter than leaving them in his car, especially with the laws in New Jersey.
In reality he should have tried to get the proper permits. He also still broke the law.

 

[liebuster]

Read the article over. He had already been to his parents house, which is when he just have put the guns away.

Actually, no he shouldn't have. He was not moving in with his parents, he was moving into an apartment with his friends. If he had put them in his parents house he would have been breaking the law. Unlike you, I read all the articles.

I think putting them at his parents, would have been smarter than leaving them in his car, especially with the laws in New Jersey.
In reality he should have tried to get the proper permits. He also still broke the law.

How did you he break the law. He was moving from one residence to another. He was protected under the moving exception in the law but was denied the right to argue that in his trial.

Not to mention having to get permits for firearms that are protected under the 2nd amendment???

 

[jillian]

They are asking for the governor to intervene to avoid the delays involved in an appeal, not because the appeals are exhausted. They just filed the first appeal, and I am sure you know that will take months, and even if the appellate court agrees with the defense it will not mean he gets out of prison, or even a new trial, because the prosecution can appeal if they loose.

My guess is this is a long shot because Christie is pretty willing to take stances that are controversial in defense of his principles. I doubt it will happen, but if it does it will have been worth the time and effort.

I can't imagine the governor stepping over proper court channels before appeals are exhausted. nor do i think it would be appropriate for him to do so. Like I said, I think the sentence is excessive. But I also think the guy should do jail time. Him doing it while the matter works its way through the appeals court resolves that issue, imo.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Read the article over. He had already been to his parents house, which is when he just have put the guns away.

Actually, no he shouldn't have. He was not moving in with his parents, he was moving into an apartment with his friends. If he had put them in his parents house he would have been breaking the law. Unlike you, I read all the articles.

I think putting them at his parents, would have been smarter than leaving them in his car, especially with the laws in New Jersey.
In reality he should have tried to get the proper permits. He also still broke the law.

The point here is he did not break the law. Both New Jersey law and federal law allow owners of legal weapons to transport them from one residence to another, even if they have to pass through a state that prohibits weapons outside the house. The judge is the one that broke the law here by not allowing him to present the affirmative defense that he was in the process of moving those weapons. If the prosecution had an issue with that they could easily have presented evidence that he was not actually in the process of moving, and thus not in compliance with the exemption. This case is a slam dunk for being overturned eventually, even if it is just sent back for retrial to allow a jury to actually do its job and determine the facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are asking for the governor to intervene to avoid the delays involved in an appeal, not because the appeals are exhausted. They just filed the first appeal, and I am sure you know that will take months, and even if the appellate court agrees with the defense it will not mean he gets out of prison, or even a new trial, because the prosecution can appeal if they loose.

My guess is this is a long shot because Christie is pretty willing to take stances that are controversial in defense of his principles. I doubt it will happen, but if it does it will have been worth the time and effort.

I can't imagine the governor stepping over proper court channels before appeals are exhausted. nor do i think it would be appropriate for him to do so. Like I said, I think the sentence is excessive. But I also think the guy should do jail time. Him doing it while the matter works its way through the appeals court resolves that issue, imo.

You think he should do jail time because the presiding judge ignored the law? Would you think the same if this guy was your client, or a family member? Remember that he actually researched the law in advance, and discussed the applicable laws with the New Jersey State Police, which certainly qualifies in anyone's book as a good faith effort to make sure he was not breaking the law.

 

[MikeK]

[...]Like I said, I think the sentence is excessive. But I also think the guy should do jail time. [...]

Why do you think this fellow should do jail time? Because of New Jersey's utterly irrational gun laws?

Who did he harm? He had a couple a lawfully obtained, unloaded, disassembled guns in his luggage and he had checked with the NJ police to find out the legalities, which he believed he was complying with. He comes from a place where guns are no big deal and he is guilty of only a petty technicality -- yet these crazy bastards want to impose seven years of misery on him and give him a criminal record? I know of situations in which men who committed forcible rape and aggravated assault were sentenced to only five years!

Prison is for people who hurt other people. If anything, this fellow deserves a fine for benign negligence and at most some community service.

 

[snjmom]

Actually, no he shouldn't have. He was not moving in with his parents, he was moving into an apartment with his friends. If he had put them in his parents house he would have been breaking the law. Unlike you, I read all the articles.

I think putting them at his parents, would have been smarter than leaving them in his car, especially with the laws in New Jersey.
In reality he should have tried to get the proper permits. He also still broke the law.

The point here is he did not break the law. Both New Jersey law and federal law allow owners of legal weapons to transport them from one residence to another, even if they have to pass through a state that prohibits weapons outside the house. The judge is the one that broke the law here by not allowing him to present the affirmative defense that he was in the process of moving those weapons. If the prosecution had an issue with that they could easily have presented evidence that he was not actually in the process of moving, and thus not in compliance with the exemption. This case is a slam dunk for being overturned eventually, even if it is just sent back for retrial to allow a jury to actually do its job and determine the facts.

From his own website. briandaitken

Several witnesses, including the arresting officer, testified that not only did Brian have multiple residences but that his car was packed with his personal belongings

Brian had just brought his firearms from CO to NJ a week prior to his arrest

So, he had been in NJ for a week and had multiple residences where he could have stored his firearms instead of running around with them in his trunk. That is a blatant violation of the law. While I don't know enough about NJ's crime situation to debate the appropriateness of it's gun laws, this gentleman doesn't fit the exception of moving them directly from one residence to another, which seems to be the exception he keeps trying to claim. Then he rolled the dice on a trial. Bad move on his part.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think putting them at his parents, would have been smarter than leaving them in his car, especially with the laws in New Jersey.
In reality he should have tried to get the proper permits. He also still broke the law.

The point here is he did not break the law. Both New Jersey law and federal law allow owners of legal weapons to transport them from one residence to another, even if they have to pass through a state that prohibits weapons outside the house. The judge is the one that broke the law here by not allowing him to present the affirmative defense that he was in the process of moving those weapons. If the prosecution had an issue with that they could easily have presented evidence that he was not actually in the process of moving, and thus not in compliance with the exemption. This case is a slam dunk for being overturned eventually, even if it is just sent back for retrial to allow a jury to actually do its job and determine the facts.

From his own website. briandaitken

Several witnesses, including the arresting officer, testified that not only did Brian have multiple residences but that his car was packed with his personal belongings

Brian had just brought his firearms from CO to NJ a week prior to his arrest

So, he had been in NJ for a week and had multiple residences where he could have stored his firearms instead of running around with them in his trunk. That is a blatant violation of the law. While I don't know enough about NJ's crime situation to debate the appropriateness of it's gun laws, this gentleman doesn't fit the exception of moving them directly from one residence to another, which seems to be the exception he keeps trying to claim. Then he rolled the dice on a trial. Bad move on his part.

That settles it, the cop says he's guilty.

Why was he prevented from presenting the evidence that he had called the New Jersey police to find out what the law is? How can one person actually have multiple residences? Did he stay in a different place every night? If so, wouldn't traveling between them counts as moving from one residence to another?

 

[snjmom]

That settles it, the cop says he's guilty.

Why was he prevented from presenting the evidence that he had called the New Jersey police to find out what the law is? How can one person actually have multiple residences? Did he stay in a different place every night? If so, wouldn't traveling between them counts as moving from one residence to another?

Several witnesses and it is presented as something in his favor on his website, which shows how deluded the young man is. Why would he present any evidence of being aware of the law that he broke? What bearing does it have on the core issue? Multiple residences is the high-falutin' term for crashing where I can. And no, driving from crash pad to crash pad is not included in the moving exception. If he didn't have a solid place to stay, he could have placed them in a storage unit. He had a lot of options other than driving around town for a week with them in his car.

Again, I think the punishment in this case is excessive but how do you square that with making sure gangbangers caught with guns get put away for a good long term? As I stated previously, he seems to suffer from the "all laws apply to everyone else but me, cause I'm a law-abiding citizen" syndrome, judging by the crack about purchasing the weapons at a Bass Pro Shop and not some Tony on the street.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That settles it, the cop says he's guilty.

Why was he prevented from presenting the evidence that he had called the New Jersey police to find out what the law is? How can one person actually have multiple residences? Did he stay in a different place every night? If so, wouldn't traveling between them counts as moving from one residence to another?

Several witnesses and it is presented as something in his favor on his website, which shows how deluded the young man is. Why would he present any evidence of being aware of the law that he broke? What bearing does it have on the core issue? Multiple residences is the high-falutin' term for crashing where I can. And no, driving from crash pad to crash pad is not included in the moving exception. If he didn't have a solid place to stay, he could have placed them in a storage unit. He had a lot of options other than driving around town for a week with them in his car.

Again, I think the punishment in this case is excessive but how do you square that with making sure gangbangers caught with guns get put away for a good long term? As I stated previously, he seems to suffer from the "all laws apply to everyone else but me, cause I'm a law-abiding citizen" syndrome, judging by the crack about purchasing the weapons at a Bass Pro Shop and not some Tony on the street.

What evidence was presented that the weapons were in the trunk the last time he was in NJ? If he took several trips back and forth, which is what his website says, then it is entirely possible the weapons were not in the car the last time he was in NJ.

But feel free to keep insisting that the case against him is airtight despite the fact that the judge felt it necessary to block him from telling the truth.

 

[Montrovant]

That settles it, the cop says he's guilty.

Why was he prevented from presenting the evidence that he had called the New Jersey police to find out what the law is? How can one person actually have multiple residences? Did he stay in a different place every night? If so, wouldn't traveling between them counts as moving from one residence to another?

Several witnesses and it is presented as something in his favor on his website, which shows how deluded the young man is. Why would he present any evidence of being aware of the law that he broke? What bearing does it have on the core issue? Multiple residences is the high-falutin' term for crashing where I can. And no, driving from crash pad to crash pad is not included in the moving exception. If he didn't have a solid place to stay, he could have placed them in a storage unit. He had a lot of options other than driving around town for a week with them in his car.

Again, I think the punishment in this case is excessive but how do you square that with making sure gangbangers caught with guns get put away for a good long term? As I stated previously, he seems to suffer from the "all laws apply to everyone else but me, cause I'm a law-abiding citizen" syndrome, judging by the crack about purchasing the weapons at a Bass Pro Shop and not some Tony on the street.

What evidence was presented that the weapons were in the trunk the last time he was in NJ? If he took several trips back and forth, which is what his website says, then it is entirely possible the weapons were not in the car the last time he was in NJ.

But feel free to keep insisting that the case against him is airtight despite the fact that the judge felt it necessary to block him from telling the truth.

I thought he didn't testify? That would make it more the judge blocking his lawyer from telling the truth

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Several witnesses and it is presented as something in his favor on his website, which shows how deluded the young man is. Why would he present any evidence of being aware of the law that he broke? What bearing does it have on the core issue? Multiple residences is the high-falutin' term for crashing where I can. And no, driving from crash pad to crash pad is not included in the moving exception. If he didn't have a solid place to stay, he could have placed them in a storage unit. He had a lot of options other than driving around town for a week with them in his car.

Again, I think the punishment in this case is excessive but how do you square that with making sure gangbangers caught with guns get put away for a good long term? As I stated previously, he seems to suffer from the "all laws apply to everyone else but me, cause I'm a law-abiding citizen" syndrome, judging by the crack about purchasing the weapons at a Bass Pro Shop and not some Tony on the street.

What evidence was presented that the weapons were in the trunk the last time he was in NJ? If he took several trips back and forth, which is what his website says, then it is entirely possible the weapons were not in the car the last time he was in NJ.

But feel free to keep insisting that the case against him is airtight despite the fact that the judge felt it necessary to block him from telling the truth.

I thought he didn't testify? That would make it more the judge blocking his lawyer from telling the truth

Which is legally the same as blocking him in a court because the lawyer speaks for the defendant.

 

[snjmom]

QW, his own website says he brought them from CO to NJ A WEEK AGO.

Brian had just brought his firearms from CO to NJ a week prior to his arrest

I can see why the lawyer didn't have him testify. When he entered the city it was his responsibility to secure his firearms and stop riding around with them in the car.

Or are you one of those people that thinks they should get a pass doing 80 in a 55 cause your driving history is clean and your car is legal?

 

[liebuster]

QW, his own website says he brought them from CO to NJ A WEEK AGO.

Brian had just brought his firearms from CO to NJ a week prior to his arrest

I can see why the lawyer didn't have him testify. When he entered the city it was his responsibility to secure his firearms and stop riding around with them in the car.

Or are you one of those people that thinks they should get a pass doing 80 in a 55 cause your driving history is clean and your car is legal?

I can't believe your actually taking the judges side on this one. When did it become illegal to carry a firearm in your car that is unloaded, disassembled, cased and buried under a bunch of crap???
Here in CO you are alowed to conceal a handgun in your car because your car is an extension of your property. You just can't step out of your car with it concealed on you. Once you step outside the firearm has to be visable and is considered a legal open carry firearm.

Remind me not to live in NJ.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW, his own website says he brought them from CO to NJ A WEEK AGO.

Brian had just brought his firearms from CO to NJ a week prior to his arrest

I can see why the lawyer didn't have him testify. When he entered the city it was his responsibility to secure his firearms and stop riding around with them in the car.

Or are you one of those people that thinks they should get a pass doing 80 in a 55 cause your driving history is clean and your car is legal?

As I said, he transported them from his home in Colorado to his new home in NJ. I know you think that is an instantaneous event, but the real world does not work that way.